Alfred Perlstein:
>* Kevin Oberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010312 13:46] wrote:
>> How serious is the possible corruption issue, anyway. The loss in
>> performance is pretty drastic although it may be that dd is an
>> especially bad case, but I really don't like to corrupt my disks,
>> either.
>
>If basically running with blind write caching turned on is akin to
>running your filesystem in async mode. This is because write
>caching gives the drive license to lie about completing a write,
>the various ordering of writes are effectively bypassed. If you
>crash without these dependancies actually written to the disk, when
>you come back up you have a good chance of losing large portions
>of your filesystem.
I'd say this is a bit too pessimistic. There is a fundamental difference
between softupdates and ATA write-cacheing: Softupdates holds the async
data in main RAM while ATA write-cacheing already has it in the (cache
memory of the) disk device.
Obviously a power outage would affect both situations in a similar way.
But during just an operating system crash (assuming power stays up),
one should be better off with ATA write-cacheing, as the disk should be
able to dump the data from the cache chips to the physical medium. With
softupdates async data is just lost.
Generally I'd say it's not a bad idea to have write caching on the disk
enabled - assuming that it is decently implemented. BTW, don't SCSI
disks use write cacheing as well? :-)
Just my 2¢,
Helge
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
